Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attack against the message having failed, it's time to shoot the messenger.
My first post took apart his methods for arriving to his bs conclusion. You have stated that you don't believe Jan. 11 polls are one year old polls, fine, that's your decision, but don't think I'm falling for your strawman attempts. The blogger is a hack who used polls from a year ago to determine an election that will take place in 9 months. What a joke.
Last edited by Skinny Puppy; 02-01-2012 at 06:19 PM..
My first post took apart his methods for arriving to his bs conclusion. You have stated that you don't believe Jan. 11 polls are one year old polls, fine, that's your decision, but don't think I'm falling for your strawman attempts. The guy is a hack who used polls from a year ago to determine an election that will take place in 9 months. What a joke.
Seriously? You're going to persist with misconstruing what I said? I supposed I should not be surprised at that coming from the left-wing. I figured it was just a lame attempt at humor on your part, but it now sounds like you have convinced yourself of your own hallucination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Actually this data is not "from a year ago." It is from Jan 2011 to Dec 2011, so some of it is a year ago, and some a month ago.
Except your premise is entirely wrong. That map is not a generic Republican against Obama. It is not any Republican against Obama. In fact it is based on a complation of polls where no one ever asked "would you vote for Obama, or genaric Republican/Insert R candidate." That is why I call it epic fail journalism.
This basically takes Obama's old approval numbers and assumes everyone who disapproves of Obama will vote Republican and everyone who approves of Obama will vote D. This is a ridiculous premise since there are people who disapprove of Obama because they think he is too conservative, but will vote for him anyway, there are people who disapprove of Obama, but are libertarians and will vote libertarian, there are people who disapprove of Obama, but think all candidates are worthless and will not vote. Then there are people who approve of Obama, but will not vote for him.
That is why you have to be deluded to look at what those polls are saying and put them in a D vs R match up.
Point taken. If I remember correctly, George W won reelection with an approval rating well under 50%. I don't have numbers for any other election, but I'm sure there's lots of that throughout history and lots of presidents with high approval ratings that lost anyways.
Point taken. If I remember correctly, George W won reelection with an approval rating well under 50%. I don't have numbers for any other election, but I'm sure there's lots of that throughout history and lots of presidents with high approval ratings that lost anyways.
He won re-election with a 48% approval rate. There is a big difference between 48% and 43%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
